沈阳哪个医院可以看脸部过敏沈阳做过敏原检测需要多少钱,沈阳哪个玫瑰痤疮医院专业,沈阳市哪家医院治疗灰指甲较好,沈阳市在哪里治疗疙瘩好,沈阳痘痘哪里治疗比较好,沈阳治风疹块去哪家医院比较好,沈阳市哪家治疗皮肤病较好

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Scheduling glitches led an immigration judge to deny the Trump administration's request to order four Central American migrants deported because they failed to show for initial hearings Wednesday in the U.S. while being forced to wait in Mexico.The judge's refusal was a setback for the administration's highly touted initiative to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. immigration courts.One migrant came to court with a notice to appear on Saturday, March 30 and said he later learned that he was supposed to show up Wednesday. He reported in the morning to U.S. authorities at the main crossing between San Diego and Tijuana."I almost didn't make it because I had two dates," he said.Similar snafus marred the first hearings last week when migrants who were initially told to show up Tuesday had their dates bumped up several days.Judge Scott Simpson told administration lawyers to file a brief by April 10 that explains how it can assure migrants are properly notified of appointments. The judge postponed initial appearances for the four no-shows to April 22, which raised more questions about how they would learn about the new date.Government documents had no street address for the four men in Tijuana and indicated that correspondence was to be sent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Simpson asked how the administration would alert them."I don't have a response to that," said Robert Wities, an attorney for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.At least two others were given notices to appear Tuesday but, when they showed up at the border, were told by U.S. authorities that they were not on the schedule that day. Their attorneys quickly got new dates for Wednesday but Mexico refused to take them back, forcing them to stay overnight in U.S. custody.Laura Sanchez, an attorney for one of the men, said she called a court toll-free number to confirm her client's initial hearing Tuesday but his name didn't appear anywhere in the system. Later, she learned that it was Wednesday.Sanchez said after Wednesday's hearing that she didn't know if Mexico would take her client back. Mexican officials didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.Homeland Security Department representatives did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Wednesday.The snafus came two days before a federal judge in San Francisco hears oral arguments to halt enforcement of the "Migration Protection Protocols" policy in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Southern Poverty Law Center and Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.The policy shift, which followed months of high-level talks between the U.S. and Mexico, was launched in San Diego on Jan. 29 amid growing numbers of asylum-seeking families from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Mexicans and children traveling alone are exempt.Families are typically released in the U.S. with notices to appear in court and stay until their cases are resolved, which can take years. The new policy aims to change that by making people wait in Mexico, though it is off to a modest start with 240 migrants being sent back to Tijuana from San Diego in the first six weeks. U.S. officials say they plan to sharply expand the policy across the entire border.Mexican officials have expressed concern about what both governments say is a unilateral move by the Trump administration but has allowed asylum seekers to wait in Mexico with humanitarian visas.U.S. officials call the new policy an unprecedented effort that aims to discourage weak asylum claims and reduce a court backlog of more than 800,000 cases.Several migrants who appeared Wednesday said they fear that waiting in Mexico for their next hearings would jeopardize their personal safety. The government attorney said they would be interviewed by an asylum officer to determine if their concerns justified staying in the U.S.Some told the judge they struggled to find attorneys and were granted more time to find one. Asylum seekers are entitled to legal representation but not at government expense.U.S. authorities give migrants who are returned to Mexico a list of no-cost legal providers in the U.S. but some migrants told the judge that calls went unanswered or they were told that services were unavailable from Mexico.A 48-year-old man said under the judge's questioning that he had headaches and throat ailments. The judge noted that migrants with medical issues are exempt from waiting in Mexico and ordered a medical exam.___Associated Press writer Maria Verza in Mexico City contributed to this report. 4614

SAN DIEGO — A San Diego police officer is blowing the whistle on a newly unveiled program that reports to reward officers for making more narcotics arrests.“It’s completely everything that we are against as law enforcement officers. It’s unethical,” he said. He spoke with Scripps station KGTV in San Diego on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his badge.“It’s a reward system. A bounty system for officers seeking rewards for their arrests,” he tells us.KGTV was provided a copy of an internal email that was sent last week from a sergeant to more than 90 officers. It states that the program is strictly voluntary and that the program runs from March 1 (retroactive) to April 14.Accompanying the email is an attachment outlining the program details, including the point scale. 832

SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A complaint was filed Friday on behalf of an asylum-seeking Honduran family -- which includes a newborn U.S. citizen born in Chula Vista -- that was sent across the border to Mexico to await asylum proceedings two days after the child's birth.All four family members, including the newborn who lacks legal immigration status in Mexico, were ordered across the border by Border Patrol agents, according to the joint administrative complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Jewish Family Service.The organizations have asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to conduct an investigation into the family's case. They say the family should have been allowed a legally required non-refoulement interview regarding the family's fears of being sent to Mexico.Reached for comment, a CBP spokesperson said, "As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation. However, lack of comment should not be construed as agreement or stipulation with any of the allegations."The complaint alleges the family -- father, pregnant mother and 9-year- old son -- fled Honduras about a year ago and turned themselves in at the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego on June 27, one day before the mother gave birth to her son. As she was giving birth at Scripps Mercy Hospital in Chula Vista, her husband and son were not told which hospital she was taken to and were ordered back across the border, according to the complaint.After giving birth on June 28, the mother was "interrogated" by Border Patrol agents, according to the complaint, which says the woman asked the whereabouts of her husband and older son but was not given any information by the agents.The ACLU and Jewish Family Service allege the family should have been provided a non-refoulement interview, with both father and mother expressing fears about being returned to Mexico, but instead the mother and newborn were forced across the border on June 30.The complaint also alleges the family tried to enter the United States in March near the U.S-Mexico border in Texas and stated fears over being turned back to Mexico, but were also turned away without being provided a non-refoulement interview. They were told to return weeks later for an immigration hearing, but COVID-19 led to a postponement of their court date.While forced to wait in Mexico, the complaint alleges the family was "accosted and detained by a group of armed men who attempted to extort them."The family is now staying in a rented room in Tijuana, "and neither the newborn, nor his mother, has received any medical care since the birth," in contradiction of guidance from Scripps Mercy Hospital to have follow-up visits with doctors, according to the ACLU and Jewish Family Service."This family should have been granted release into the U.S. to await their asylum proceedings, as the Department of Homeland Security has done with more than 23,500 individuals -- all in family units -- over the past 1.5 years across the San Diego border region," said Luis M. Gonzalez, supervising immigration attorney with Jewish Family Service. "We urge Homeland Security to grant this family entry into the U.S. immediately to keep the family together and allow for adequate care for the U.S. citizen newborn child and for the mother's postpartum medical care."The complaint alleges that not providing the family with a non-refoulement interview violates U.S. law and Department of Homeland Security policies. The organizations demand the family be paroled together in the United States while they await asylum proceedings."This case reflects many of the lived horrors of both the so-called `Migrant Protection Protocols' and Border Patrol impunity," said Mitra Ebadolahi, an ACLU senior staff attorney. "No family should have to endure what this family has experienced. Together with Jewish Family Service, we are demanding a full investigation. The agency must be held to account for its disregard of basic human rights and its policy and legal transgressions." 4050

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Tony Gonsolin quieted San Diego’s bats for seven innings, Edwin Rios homered and the Los Angeles Dodgers won 3-1 to snap the Padres’ eight-game winning streak and regain a 2 ?-game lead in the NL West. The seven-time NL West champion Dodgers, being pushed by a Padres team that hasn’t been to the playoffs since winning the division in 2006, bounced back from a 7-2 loss in the opener of the series between the NL’s two best teams. The Padres, cruising toward a berth in the expanded playoffs, lost for just the third time in 15 games. 560

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A Navy SEAL committed murder during a deployment to Iraq and the proof is in his own words, his own photos and the testimony of his fellow troops, a military prosecutor told a jury Monday.Cmdr. Jeff Pietrzyk said in closing arguments of a court-martial that text messages by Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher show he is guilty of fatally stabbing a wounded Islamic State prisoner on May 3, 2017.One message said: "I've got a cool story for you when I get back. I've got my knife skills on." Another text stated: "Good story behind this. Got him with my hunting knife."As he showed a photo of the dead prisoner with Gallagher holding up his head by the hair, the prosecutor said, "Those are his words."The prosecutor said one SEAL who changed his story and claimed to have killed the prisoner himself was lying to protect Gallagher."The government's evidence in this case is Chief Gallagher's words, Chief Gallagher's pictures, Chief Gallagher's SEALs," Pietrzyk said.The prosecutor said he wouldn't try to argue sympathy for the teenage prisoner, who had been wounded in an air strike."Before the air strike, he would have done anything in his power to kill an American," Pietrzyk said.But he said the prisoner was not a lawful target."We're not ISIS. When we capture someone and they're out of the fight, that's it. That's where the line is drawn," Pietrzyk said.Gallagher, 40, has pleaded not guilty to murder and allegations that he shot civilians and a violation involving posing with the corpse for photographs.Defense lawyer Tim Parlatore began his closing argument the same way he started the trial. "This is case is not about murder, it's about mutiny." Parlatore said.The attorney said there's no body, no forensics, and the SEALs who testified against Gallagher lied because they didn't like his demanding leadership.Parlatore also addressed the testimony of Special Operator Corey Scott, who said he saw Gallagher stab the prisoner in the neck but stunned the court when he said he was the one who ultimately killed the prisoner by plugging his breathing tube with his thumb as an act of mercy.The defense attorney contended that investigators never asked Scott about the cause of the death, which is why they were surprised by his testimony."They didn't even listen to their own witness," Parlatore said.A jury of five Marines and two sailors, one a SEAL, will weigh whether Gallagher, a 19-year veteran on his eighth deployment, went off the rails and fatally stabbed the war prisoner as a kind of trophy kill.During the trial, it was revealed that nearly all the platoon members readily posed for photos with the dead prisoner and watched as Gallagher read his reenlistment oath near the body in an impromptu ceremony.Nearly a dozen SEALs testified over two weeks. Most were granted immunity to protect them from being prosecuted for acts they described on the stand.Seven SEALs said Gallagher unexpectedly stabbed the prisoner, moments after he and the other medics treated the 17-year-old boy. Two, including Scott, testified they saw Gallagher plunge his knife into the prisoner's neck.An Iraqi general who handed the wounded prisoner to the SEALs testified that Gallagher did not stab the boy. And Marine Staff Sgt. Giorgio Kirylo said after the militant died that he moved the body to take a "cool guy trophy" photo with it and saw no stab wounds on his neck.Lt. Jacob Portier, the officer in charge, has been charged separately for overseeing the reenlistment ceremony and not reporting the alleged stabbing. 3561